President-King? Maybe this is the way out of the chaos of democracy? Reflections of Polish monarchist Pawel Chmielewski on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the Piast dynasty

Unfortunately, that’s how it was (I’ll explain soon why I say “almost”). It’s hard to recall another anniversary of such importance that we have missed in a similar way. Yes, I agree: the 100th anniversaries of independence and the Battle of Warsaw were also not commemorated as they deserved. But in any case, this is a different caliber of event—the coronation of Bolesław the Brave is a moment which, in a certain sense, marks our, the Poles’, existence from a civilizational point of view.

Why did this happen? The first and main reason is the same as always: because few people care. Our political culture, formed after 1989, has not created any way to celebrate important national anniversaries. We think about Poland almost exclusively in the context of current party struggles, legal and ambitious confrontation with the European Union, or (semi-)military confrontation with Russia or Belarus. We do not deeply analyze the political system—neither its mechanisms nor its foundations; we do not research the fundamental goals of Poland’s existence.

The second reason is distance—chronological and ideological. Bolesław the Brave and the Piast dynasty do not move us at all—it is seen as a closed chapter of our history. It’s nice to read about, remember, watch a film, but nothing more; it doesn’t warm us or arouse passions.

Finally, the third reason why we missed this great anniversary is that the current team is in power—Donald Tusk and his associates are not people who are ideologically capable of making something grand out of the 1000th anniversary of the Polish crown.

Because of this, we simply ignore the 1000th anniversary of Chrobry’s coronation. I write “we ignore,” but that is a strong statement, and such statements are quite rare. Here and there, various initiatives appeared, even if they were insignificant on a national scale or simply too small, and they failed to unite into a single mass that could realistically and effectively influence Polish political consciousness. For example, the Father Skarga Association organized a monarchist congress, and the PCh24 portal published many articles about royal power—from historical, political, and spiritual perspectives. Of course, there were more such initiatives—marches, meetings, lectures, conferences—though, admittedly, there were too few.

Here I would like to recommend to your attention another initiative—a book, so I hope it will be quite lasting. The “Dębogóra” publishing house has prepared a work entitled “The Presence of the Crown. A Report on the Great Tradition of the State.” I will focus only on one of the ideas I found in this publication and which I particularly liked, because it shows a very important, beautiful, and useful aspect of monarchy; something that should be in every political system, but which is completely lost in the Third Republic (i.e., today’s Poland—ed.).

Marek Jurek (former Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland) writes about various advantages of the monarchical system. Among them, he mentions “a proper understanding of politics, which, contrary to popular opinion, is essentially not ‘a struggle for power,’ because a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25).” “The true meaning of politics, including worthy political struggle, is participation in sovereign authority. […] The existence of sovereign authority represented by established institutions is a prerequisite for politics. Without it, there is only civil war, even if it is cold. Therefore, politics that does not recognize the relativity of party struggles, which (even for the sake of convictions) absolutizes their significance, will always be destructive to the state and hinder its progress,” he notes.

Universal history, including Polish history, gives us many examples of dramatic struggles for power—brutal games for the throne that shake the whole state and often become a mortal threat to it. There have been times when it was not external invasions, but the confusion of fighting claimants, that posed the greatest danger to a given state. On the other hand, periods when one ruler governs strongly and unchallenged are a blessing for the stability of states. It’s simple: civil war is the worst, because, as Marek Jurek writes, drawing on the wisdom of the Gospel, a house divided against itself cannot stand. In a monarchy, this situation is perfectly visible, because the difference between internal peace and civil war is very clear.

And in democracy—especially our Polish democracy? Do we recognize the existence of sovereign authority represented by established institutions? Or, to put it differently, do such institutions exist at all? It seems that their existence is at least questionable: in the Third Republic, even the Constitutional Court has become an object of political struggle, as if it were “booty” in an ongoing civil war.

Our Polish democracy, unlike the monarchical ideal described by Marek Jurek, is precisely “a struggle for power”—not a struggle for “participation in authority,” but a struggle for power itself. This is a huge, perhaps even the greatest problem of our politics. Of course, it must be admitted that this is not only a Polish problem—similar things happen in other democratic countries, though not always and not everywhere. For example, in the Federal Republic of Germany, until now, there has been a struggle for a share of power, not for power itself. Politicians understand that the state is greater than their parties—perhaps because the FRG has a very strong institutional foundation, which no one questions or violates. In any case, practice shows that the democratic game can be played in a more appropriate way—so that what the king so beautifully symbolizes, namely stability and the greatness of the state, is preserved.

It is worth considering what can be improved in our country so that the “monarchical” aspect of continuity and greatness is more strongly felt. Everyone will suggest solutions dictated by their views on political matters—there may be dozens of such solutions. I would like to draw your attention to one solution which, in my opinion, has an additional advantage, because it is a kind of imitatio regni, or imitation of the kingdom. It is a strong and long-term presidency—not the one we have in Poland today, which is very weakened due to the strong, “chancellor-type” prime minister position and ambiguous constitutional provisions. But at the same time, it is not like in the USA, where due to the very short term and unclear election campaign rules, the president’s “monarchical” power in the long term is very unstable. If we could rethink the model of the Polish president, he could certainly draw a lot from our monarchical tradition—he could become, mutatis mutandis, a modern form of an elected monarchy. Is this ideal? No. Is it realistic? Perhaps—and that’s already a lot.

Real powers, giving a clear advantage over the government; a long term, making the president independent from party politics—these are two features of presidential power that could help Poland get out of the previously described pathology, where the struggle is for power, not for sharing it.

In the aforementioned publication, you will find many more such thoughts that can help shape our “today” and “tomorrow” in political life. It’s worth a look—let this be our legacy from the 1000th anniversary of the Brave’s coronation.

Pawel Chmielewski
www.pch24.pl